The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1887-05-13

RE q Louls Omelnls. the Adsns nspeess
People and An Cosceened Discover That
They Have No Jurisdiction % Try Nesseu.
ger Fothsringhnn Tor Compliclty n the
Oreet Express Robbery. -
Sr. LnUrs, Nay A-Whon the Fothering-
ham case was resumed In the Criminal
Court this morning. II. g. Springle, con-
ductor Of the robbed train, was called.
He testified last evening that he heard no
cutlery from Fotheringham until -. Clair
was reached: that on entering the car no
found him firmly bound, but saw no gag.
Fothcring ham was cool and composed;
at first the messenger refused 10 say how
much was stolen; but aftcrward said II
was about 10000 In bills.
Fotheringnam was reluctant TO report
the matter TO the company, the conductor
SAID. The story OF the robbery told by
him 70 the conductor. was repeated by
Fotheringham NJ the Southern two weeks
later, without any variation.
Cross-examned this morning, Mr..
Epringlc SAID he knocked ut the door Of
the express car at Mencke. but received
no answer, aud that afterward Fothcring-
ham told him that he heard the knock.
but was afraid 10 answer, a. Jim Cum
mings was holding pistol TO his head.
Fothering ham, he said, was tiled 70 stay"
his hands fastened first with q handkcr-
chief, and then securely bound with stout
rords- On top Of the safe to which he was
bound. . casting, weighing about thirty
i've pounds, was found, 30 fastened that
II Fotheringham moved II would fall and
crush him.
Al 81. Clair, where Fotheringh CHAM was
unbound. the witness told the telegraph
operator In the presence Of Fotherine-
ham 70 telegraph full particulars OF the
robbery. Al the inve stig CATION held BY
the express people, the witness was i'm
pressed with the idea that the company
was seeking TO connect him with the rob
berry.
The witness was asked II from what he
had seen on the night Of the robbery and all
through the case he was not satisfied that
Fotheringham was innocent and had 90
stated.
The state objected and the court ruled 1t
out
After James Barrett, route agent Of the
express company. had given his testimony.
Circuit Attorney Clover announced that
the State would stand on the count OF the
Indictment charging him with taking the
money, but not with receiving the stolen
property.
Judge NormIle ordered the Sheriff to re-
move the jury, and after they retired he
asked Circuit Attorney Clover II the State
had any other evidence except that the al
legged oRense was committed at Oak
Ridge, in ST. Louis county.
Mr.. Glover said he had not, and claimed
Jurisdiction simply from section 1896
Judge Normillc said:
The view the court takes Of that
statute Is not = doubtful one. lregrct
that this case has gone so far.
1T 10 an old principle Of common law
that offenses must be tried In the vein age
where they were committed. and the
earliest juries were confined to eye wit
nesses
The in iictment in this case Is evident
" founded on the supposed validity Of sec
ton 1875. which authorizes prosecution
for an offense committed on q railroad car
in any county through which the car m az
run. This particular section has never
been passed upon, but section 1891 has
been declared unconstitutional, and they
are alike in principle, as each declares
that offcnses may be prosecuted In a diff
ferent county from where the onense was
committed.
Since the money was not taken from
the express car In the city OF ~. Louis nor
any part Of II brought into this city by
the Defendant, this court has no jurisdic-
ton. The case must he dismissed here
and trans ferred 70 st. Louis county"
The Jury was then called In and Judge
Normiie instructed them 70 acquit Foth-
eringham on the ground Of want Of juris-
diction.
Messrs. Harvey and johnson objected,
and their exceptions were noted.
The jury retired and returned with the
verdict as directed by the court
Circuit Attorney Glover said there was
q second indictment against the defe nd
ant covering the same ground. and he
would nolle pros IL
Mr.. Clover then asked the court to hold
Fotherihgham under bond TO answer any
Indictment that might be brought in 81.
Louis County.
Judge Normile said he had no authority
TO take such action. and the defendant
| was discharged. Circuit Attorney Clover
stating that he would call the attention Of
! Prosecutor warheld, Of 81 LOUIS County,
( 70 the matter.